The definition of a scientific resource is a RESOURCE with scientific observations and reporting that is peer reviewed or has some official review process like a university website with scholars writing the information that is verified by other scholars.
It’s the review process by people who are authorities on the topic that make that distinction. Scholars. Other scientist.
A comment on social media and anecdotal websites hosting forums is not a scientific resource. It’s opinions.
As I said earlier. Something doesn’t have to be scientifically validated to be true or real.
But it does have to be science to be science.
More specifically, experiments must use the scientific method and specific research statistic computations to support hypotheses which then are used to create theories.
Erowid does not have a review process where a senior scientist reviews any of the things posted on it.
Neither does Lemmy or faceb9ok,
Why is review so important?
Because humans are biased and our own subjective interpretation of patterns and events is not objective.
Just to illustrate some of the ways our thinking and interpretation of events is flawed, see cognitive biases on wikipedia.
None of us, and I mean literally no one, is immune from these problems. Not me. Not you.
It’s why the only way we know anything for sure is through scientific methods of investigation. And even those aren’t full proof against bias.
I’m sorry that you don’t like the very basic explanation I gave of the properties of a drug you like. Some how that’s offensive to you.
I don’t know what to tell you.
I did get a few minor facts mixed up and i corrected them in the text. I Left in the original text and I crossed it out so that people could see I made a mistake and fixed it. Nothing I said was a huge big mistake about the drug. I misquoted the size of the tabs (10mm vs 5mm) and I was mistaken about it being neutralized in the stomach.
My gawd. Lock me up and send me a $500 fine. Jesus.
Maybe reflect on why it’s so important to you that your narrative of what the drug is, is being attacked from simple facts about how it works.
Why do you care how it works ?
Why are you so invested in this?
Why does it make you angry when someone explains the drug from a scientific perspective ?
If you don’t want to hear the scientific perspective then just ignore it.
Jesus Christ that’s a wall of text. Did you even click the link?
It’s literally a bunch of links to scientific journals.
Maybe reflect on why it’s so important to you that your narrative of what the drug is, is being attacked from simple facts about how it works.
You can’t even keep straight which thread you’re on.
I haven’t argued anything resembling your straw man. I’ve only argued that you seem to suck as a researcher.
Your inability to accept that erowid is more than a forum where people talk about their experiences, which you keep doubling down on, is a pretty good indicator of that.
First you say I’m not a “real” researcher because I didn’t give erowid as a resource.
I said it’s not scientific. You say “uh yeah it is”. I explain why it’s not and what “scientific” means because a lot of people are actually mis informed on this. And I didn’t want to argue semantics.
And then you say. That .
Are you also incapable of following your own arguments ?
I never said you weren’t a real researcher. I said you are a bad researcher.
I said this because you claimed there was no place you could find a lot of links to scientific resources outside of Wikipedia. I provided a link to erowid, which has literally thousands of such articles.
I also said this because of other comments of yours, but I never mentioned them.
I said it’s not scientific. You say “uh yeah it is”
No. I linked to pages with thousands of links to scientific journals. A link which you seemed not to have been aware of.
Are you also incapable of following your own arguments ?
I’m incapable of following what you think my argument is.
What IS your argument then ?
My argument is simply that all the evidence in the comments of this shitpost seem to indicate that you are not a good researcher.
You are uninformed about what science is. You refuse to acknowledge my definition. You know literally nothing about my research capabilities. Maybe I’m terrible at research but you wouldnt know one way or the other.
Which makes your opinion uninformed and therefore irrelevant.
Erowid are opinions of people who use recreational drugs. It’s not written by scientist. Or researchers.
And research can be misunderstood by lay people.
As I said. Some of the information may be accurate. Doesn’t matter. It’s still not a scientific resource.
I, as a scientist, would not tell people to use lemmy or reddit to learn about neuroscience. I definitely wouldn’t advise using erowid for the same reasons.
Citing a resource does not make the text a resource.
I love how you’ve moved the goalpost on what a resource is. Erowid being the collection point of many valid, peer reviewed sources doesn’t meet your specific criteria, that ridiculous. That link went directly to a retirement of your argument and you just changed your argument. You are a bad researcher.
https://www.erowid.org/references/refs.php?S=lsd
Yeah, why is that? My link has thousands of peer reviewed journal articles and you have provided nothing of the sort.
The definition of a scientific resource is a RESOURCE with scientific observations and reporting that is peer reviewed or has some official review process like a university website with scholars writing the information that is verified by other scholars.
It’s the review process by people who are authorities on the topic that make that distinction. Scholars. Other scientist.
A comment on social media and anecdotal websites hosting forums is not a scientific resource. It’s opinions.
As I said earlier. Something doesn’t have to be scientifically validated to be true or real.
But it does have to be science to be science.
More specifically, experiments must use the scientific method and specific research statistic computations to support hypotheses which then are used to create theories.
Erowid does not have a review process where a senior scientist reviews any of the things posted on it.
Neither does Lemmy or faceb9ok,
Why is review so important?
Because humans are biased and our own subjective interpretation of patterns and events is not objective.
Just to illustrate some of the ways our thinking and interpretation of events is flawed, see cognitive biases on wikipedia.
And there are way more than these. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
And have a look at memory errors while you are at it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_error
Oh and the best one. Bias blind sight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_blind_spot
None of us, and I mean literally no one, is immune from these problems. Not me. Not you.
It’s why the only way we know anything for sure is through scientific methods of investigation. And even those aren’t full proof against bias.
I’m sorry that you don’t like the very basic explanation I gave of the properties of a drug you like. Some how that’s offensive to you.
I don’t know what to tell you.
I did get a few minor facts mixed up and i corrected them in the text. I Left in the original text and I crossed it out so that people could see I made a mistake and fixed it. Nothing I said was a huge big mistake about the drug. I misquoted the size of the tabs (10mm vs 5mm) and I was mistaken about it being neutralized in the stomach.
My gawd. Lock me up and send me a $500 fine. Jesus.
Maybe reflect on why it’s so important to you that your narrative of what the drug is, is being attacked from simple facts about how it works.
Why do you care how it works ? Why are you so invested in this? Why does it make you angry when someone explains the drug from a scientific perspective ?
If you don’t want to hear the scientific perspective then just ignore it.
It’s what a lot of people do.
Jesus Christ that’s a wall of text. Did you even click the link?
It’s literally a bunch of links to scientific journals.
You can’t even keep straight which thread you’re on.
I haven’t argued anything resembling your straw man. I’ve only argued that you seem to suck as a researcher.
Your inability to accept that erowid is more than a forum where people talk about their experiences, which you keep doubling down on, is a pretty good indicator of that.
Your links were irrelevant to your argument that erowid is a scientific resource.
It’s not.
And where did I make that argument, again?
What exactly is your point ?
First you say I’m not a “real” researcher because I didn’t give erowid as a resource.
I said it’s not scientific. You say “uh yeah it is”. I explain why it’s not and what “scientific” means because a lot of people are actually mis informed on this. And I didn’t want to argue semantics.
And then you say. That .
Are you also incapable of following your own arguments ?
What IS your argument then ?
I never said you weren’t a real researcher. I said you are a bad researcher.
I said this because you claimed there was no place you could find a lot of links to scientific resources outside of Wikipedia. I provided a link to erowid, which has literally thousands of such articles.
I also said this because of other comments of yours, but I never mentioned them.
No. I linked to pages with thousands of links to scientific journals. A link which you seemed not to have been aware of.
I’m incapable of following what you think my argument is.
My argument is simply that all the evidence in the comments of this shitpost seem to indicate that you are not a good researcher.
Because erowid does not meet the definition of a resource.
Again.
Links to resources is not itself a scientific resource.
I defined for you multiple times what “scientific resource” means.
Unlike erowid, maps actually conducted scientific research.
That’s why they are listed as a resource.
Even Wikipedia has people review the material.
Erowid does not.
You are uninformed about what science is. You refuse to acknowledge my definition. You know literally nothing about my research capabilities. Maybe I’m terrible at research but you wouldnt know one way or the other.
Which makes your opinion uninformed and therefore irrelevant.
Erowid are opinions of people who use recreational drugs. It’s not written by scientist. Or researchers. And research can be misunderstood by lay people.
As I said. Some of the information may be accurate. Doesn’t matter. It’s still not a scientific resource.
I, as a scientist, would not tell people to use lemmy or reddit to learn about neuroscience. I definitely wouldn’t advise using erowid for the same reasons.
Citing a resource does not make the text a resource.
I never claimed it did. I already asked you once to show me where I said it did.
I haven’t even made a comment about your definition because it doesn’t have to do with anything I said. I accept your definition.
I know that you have made multiple claims that erowid is
Despite multiple links showing that it also has other things.
It even has a collection of resources on the topic at hand. A collection that you claimed did not exist, prompting this whole conversation.
This is pretty compelling evidence that you are unwilling or unable to change your incorrect thoughts on something that is both obvious and objective.
I literally can’t think of a worse trait in a “scientist”
EDIT: I guess being deliberately misleading is worse, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are just bad, not malicious.
I love how you’ve moved the goalpost on what a resource is. Erowid being the collection point of many valid, peer reviewed sources doesn’t meet your specific criteria, that ridiculous. That link went directly to a retirement of your argument and you just changed your argument. You are a bad researcher.